ANALYSIS OF ACADEMIC LEARNING TIME IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION CLASSES OF PROSPECTIVE AND INSERVICE TEACHERS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

AHMET YILDIRIM

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORTS

DECEMBER 2003

Approval of Graduate School of Social Sciences

___________________________

Prof. Dr. Sencer AYATA

Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of

Master of Science.

___________________________

Prof. Dr. Feza KORKUSUZ

Head of Department

This is to certify that we had read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully

adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science in

Physical Education and Sports.

___________________________ ___________________________

Assist. Prof. �������������� ��� ���� ���������������! ��"���#����$&%('��)�*�+�-,��.�+/��10�2�3

Co-Supervisor Supervisor

Examining Committee Members

Prof. Dr. Ömer GEBAN ___________________________

Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet OK ___________________________

Assist. Prof. Dr. Settar KOÇAK ___________________________

4�5�5�6�587!9�:<;=�>"9�?#;�9�@�A(B�C)7D7E6-F�G�HJI�4#KML�N OPO�OPOPO�OPO�OPOPO_________________

4�5�5�6�587!9�:<;=�>"9�?#;�9�Q�CR;C�>TS�H�S�UVG O�OPOPO�OPO�OPOPO�OPO�OPOPO�OPO�OPOPO�OPO�OPOPO�OPO�O

iii

ABSTRACT

ANALYSIS OF ACADEMIC LEARNING TIME IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION CLASSES OF PROSPECTIVE AND INSERVICE TEACHERS

WYX*Z\[�X^]X^_a`cb1dP_ae)f

M. S., Department of Physical Education and Sports gPh�i�jRk�l�m�n�opk�q�r�n�n�m�n8s!t�u�ko�v8t�w#k�t�g&x(y�j)s�sJm-z�{�m\k!xR|�}�~

Co- ���P�&�R�+���D���c�����Y�����������<����"������������!���V���*�(�(�

December 2003, 69 pages

One of the important characteristics of effective teaching is to devote

sufficient time to appropriate physical activity in physical education classes. The

purpose of this study was to compare teaching effectiveness of prospective and in-

service teachers in relation to student behaviors, course content activities and

Academic Learning Time in Physical Education (ALT-PE) scores. Participants were

26 prospective and 28 in-service physical education teachers. Forty-minute regular

lessons (n=54) of each teacher were video recorded in their natural settings and

observed with the ALT-PE observational instrument. Learner involvement behaviors,

context levels and ALT-PE scores were compared for two groups of teachers.

MANOVA results have shown significant differences in student behaviors and

course content activities between the groups. While prospective teachers spent

significantly more time with management content, in-service teachers spent

iv

significantly more time with warm-up activities. Students in the classes of

prospective teachers spent significantly more time with off-task and interim

behaviors, but students in the classes of in-service teachers spent significantly more

time with on task behaviors. The results, however, indicated no significant

differences between the groups in motor appropriate behaviors of students. ANOVA

results indicated that students spent 17.9% (for prospective teachers), and 18.7% (for

in-service teachers) of total class time with ALT-PE behaviors. It seems fair to

suggest that prospective and in-service PE teachers should decrease the time on

management, transition, waiting, and theoretical explanations, while allocating more

time on physical activity.

Keywords: Academic Learning Time in Physical Education, Effective Teaching,

Prospective Physical Education Teacher, In-service Physical Education Teacher

v

ÖZ

�����������

- �)� �¢¡�£ ¤¥��¦�§�£�¨ - ©Yª¬«.­ ®&¯¢°�­�±1­�ª²­´³µ¯�¶�¯�·�¯¸�¹�º#»´¼�½¾»�¿#À�»�º�Á�¿#Á�¿ÃÂ�»�º¬ÄÅÀ�»�º1Á"¿#Â1»�ƵÁÈÇ1ƵÇ#Â�»�½¾Á�Æɸ�¹Yº�»�¿1½�»Ê�Ë.Ì1Í�Î�Í�Ì�Ï�Ð�Ï�ÐÒÑ.Ð�Ñ1Î�Ï�Ó�Ï

ÔYÕ*Ö\×�Õ^ØÕ^ÙaÚcÛ1ÜPÙaÝ)Þ

ß�àPá�â"ã(áYäMåæâ"ç(èÅâ�éPê ã(ë�ãèYìîí�åðïJå^ñòå�ó�ã1ô�õ�öp÷Vê´ø�ù-àPñ�à ú�û(ü ý¬þpÿ�û�������������ý ��������������������������û���� �^ÿ"!��#���ü��%$

Ortak Tez-ý¬þpÿ&û&� ���%������ ý ���'�%�(�����%� ���)�û*�!û%+-,.�/�(û�0

A 1�2�3�4#57698�8�:�;9<�=?>@2*A9B�2

CED�F�D�GHD�I�JLK�JNMOJOF�D*PRQ�S�D*PRJ#G�F�DTD�K�U9J�S/JOV�IWP�D*K J#MXJ#GYVZG�D*M[S�JOV�\%D%S�S/J#U9S�D�P]JNG�F�D�G_^`JNP]JOF�Dacb#dZb#e`fg%hji*e�k�b#l�bLk�g&m�g[m�g&k�g�n]h/bod�i�p[i�q9r#qsi&m�n]r�h#p[i�f�r�t�r�nuwvyxsz�i%h�r�{]p[i�q`rNq|i�p[i�}Wr�~9b#d*pOg�k

-içi ve

hizmet- � q9}�gZf�bj��g�t�g�qsg���b#k�b#pOb � �Zn�g�k�p�g�q9h�g*n]bNq`b/� � �Wn]g*q9}%bjt�i�l�n�i�q9r�{�h�i*n]r���t�g*nRf�b�z�grikleri ve

ALT- �'��� ���%�����������L���#�O�N������� �9�������O�N������������������ ����W¡��¢¤£�¥����9¦��*�]§©¨�ªZ�`¦����]��������������@«�§/¦���«���§#���O����� §N�¬|­y��¦�§�«R����¨��¯®�°²±9�N³*�O�&� -öncesi ve 28 hizmet- ��´W�©µ������*�¶�%���L���N�[�·�¸W¹�º�»�¼[º�½`¾À¿9Á&»�Â�Ã#¼XÂ�Ä�» ÂN¹Å[Æ�º�¹Ç·�¸W¹�º�»�¼Oº�½`¾#½¯¿9Â#¹�¿ÉÈ�Á�¿9¾N¿�Á%Ã�Â#¿ËÊ9¾N¹]º�¹ÌÈ�º*¹@Í�¾ÏÎ9¾�È�º�ÐWÑ�Á_¿�Á�Ñ9ÂL»º�È�¾�Ã#¼O¾�Ä@Ò�Î�º�Ó(Ô�Õ

-PE Ö�×ZØZÙ�Ú�Û¯Ü�ÝZÞcÛ�ß�à�ß`Ù�Ù�á*â9ã�Ù�á�Þ�á�àOá�â9á�Ù/äNØ�Ú%å�ä/Ù�Û[ä�æ�ç ä�Þè�é.ÝZà�ê�×�â9Ù#ë�ì�á�Þ�ê�á*â`íá�â�áWÙ/ä#ØZä�íÝZâ�ß9î%Ù�á�Þ]ã#â9á|Ö�×ZÞ�Úsä#à9ä�×�ïWÞ]Ú&ç�ÛOÚ�âÇÖWÞ�ß�ð�ßñá�Þ�áZí�ã�â�å�á|×�ïWÞ]Ú*â9ò%äóå�á�ì�Þ]á�â9ãôæ@Ù/á*Þ]ã�ì�Úõå�Ú*ÞRíä�î%Ú*Þ]ä�ï�äöê�×�â9Ù�Ú�Þ]ä#â9å�Ú*â²á�â9Ù/á*ÛOÙ/ãsÜ�á*Þ�à9Ù/ã�Ù/ã#à¯ð�ß`Ù#ß�â�Û�ß�æ�ç�ß�Þè[÷"ä#Ø�Û[Ú&ç - ×Zâ9ò�ÚZí�äöð�Ú�å�Ú*âÉÚ�ï�ä#ç ä#ÛXä×�ïWÞ�Ú�ç�Û[Ú�â`Ù/Ú�ÞRäøíã#â`ã/Üùê�×�â�Ú*ç ä#ÛXä#â�Ú[å á�ú9áXÜ�á�Ø�Ù�á�Ø%á*ÛOá�âõá&ê`ãNÞ]ã#Þcà�Ú�â`ûüú`ä#Ø*ÛOÚ&ç - ä�îWäýð9Ú�å�Ú�âõÚ�ï�äLç ä�Û[ä

vi

þ�ÿ����������������� ������������������ ��� ��������� ����!"��#��%$&��'()�*'��+�,��-�/.0�)��!"���0)��� �21�þ('()��"�3 �4��� ��65879.�0�

zamanda, hizmet- �:; =<���!��+>�%ÿ� ?�& ��� ?þ�ÿ����/������0)��� �� �@!����������� ��!����0 ?þ�ÿ(����0A� �����B!��+#��

fazla “konuyla ilgili” (on-�������"C�!����D�������4

gösterirken, hizmet-þ(�A����� E<��+!"��F�%ÿ� ?�G ���

H�I�J�K�L�M�K�N�O�K�J�P�N0P)NRQ�K�JTS�O)K�J P�N0Q�K�U0PVH�I(J�K�N0W�P�O�K�JFQ�X�Y�X[Z\X�];O�X_^�U�`DN�a�b0O�X_P�O�c�P�S6P�];d_eG`�Z\Z-task)

Q�X�f�J�X�N�g�h,cDH0S L�K�J&MiP�h�O)K�J�Q�P�J�jlkmI�J�K+N�W�P�O�K�J�P�N-a�b�c�a�NnM3`(L�`(JoX�UDL�P)f�P?L�K;Q�K*p"a0O�a"N�QDa�U0O�X�J gq]�X�M�X�NU�X�JThrg�O�X;h�LGg�J O�Q�g)I�g�N0Q�XsP�U0PtH�I(J�K�L�M,K+Nuc�J&a"p�auX�J X�S�g�N�Q"XvX�N�O X�MiO�gip0P�JwZ\X�J&Uuc�H(];O�K�N�M�K�MiP�h L�P�J

(hizmet- xDy�z+{(|r}ix�~�� {�����{+y0�){��V})��}�y_�w�������v�"{��0}����,{�� - ���;���"���������3���0��������������� ���"���( ��¡ ��¢+�����������¤£��-¥���¢��3�/���(�0¦���§��9¨0�+©"���v�+���������3�=���(���/���,���0����� �o§6ª��0ª�«­¬��D���������3�?¬0����®m¯�°D��±² ��ª�¯0� ² � ² §6ª?¬0� ² ®¤³D�;����´��)�����)�w£��µ§�ª�� ² ¨���¯0������������� �)�¶����³"�����¤¢ ² � ² �v©"���������)�0�·© ¸�´�¸��&�������9£"�«\��¢(��¯�§���� ² ¯D���)£��?����¬��¹© ² ¥ ² « ² ¢;� ² ¢ ² � ² � ² ¬�ª��\� ² ��ª�©"ª���� ² �6�

º � ² ¥D� ² �8»¤�����)�,�;�����½¼�¾¿��©����oÀÁ�"�������3���0©�� º ¯ ² ©�������¯­Â9�������"�,�=Ã�¸"���;§6��Ä º¤ÅÇÆ-PE), Etkili

Âm��� �/���)��® ¡ ��¢��3�/� - �(��¦���§���¾��+©��+�=ÀÈ���������3�0Â9����������������® ¡ �)¢��,��� - ���;�"¾���©"���=Àl���?�G���3�Âm��� �/���3�����

vii

To my Dearest Family

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to those who have extended their help and contributed the

completion of this work, particularly to my advisors, Assist. Prof. Dr. Sadettin

ÉmÊGËqÌmÍÈÎÐÏÒÑ+Ó�Ô9ÌÖÕ�Õ6×�Õ�Ø�Ù;ÚÜÛ�Ý�ÞTÙ;ßEÛ6Ù"à0á�Û�á;ÞÒâqÊ\âÐãÇɤä0Þ\Ý(ÛåØ�æ0á�×�ÛÇæ�á�ç�è0ä�é�ê0×�Ô�Ñ�Ó�ë+á;ä�Ñ�Ó0ÔÖÕupport.

My appreciation is also extended to the members of thesis committee, Prof.

Dr. Ömer GEBAN for his support during statistical analysis, Assist. Prof. Dr. Ahmet

OK for his invaluable contributions and courage, and Assist. Prof. Dr. Settar

KOÇAK for his close interest during the development of this work.

ìEí�îïí�ð�ñTòBó�ô0í�õ�ö�÷�ø�ðùó�òBú9û�üþý�üþÿ�������õ�ó ����� ÷&ò(û�ô ��ñ���ø�����í�õ���� í�õ�����õ��"í�ð�ø0í���ð��support during undergraduate and graduate years. I want to also thank for his

����� �"!�#%$ &'&($�����#)�+*-,.#)�0/�!21���#3��� ��#%��1�!�4�5�����#����)&6&�798�#;:'7=<>��*�? !A@�BC:DBEGF0?�#;?��IHJ��� 1�K'�while putting the data in order and analyzing the data, I am grateful to him. I also

*�?�L�4�MN*O#NPD!2H�LIH�Q-RTSUQVR.WAR=L�4�1CPX�Y*[Z�H>\%]^QD]=BC_C@T`3,.#)�a*�?�� !J�^��#)�.������*O!�#%4 &�!�4�]94�5�H�!�&b?>7 RcF�L�4�*d*O#'&e��4�1LN&(�����I!�L"H�*�?�L�4�M &G*O#�fCLIg(L��h\%:Ci�WhR67)R9L�Kj1��"��� Hlkm5)��LY*+!l*�$�1��X*O#�? !JKfor his endless support and cheerful face all the time. He provided a computer for me

during a writing process.

I want to send my gratitude to my family: my mother Yeter YILDIRIM, my

,+LY*[?����no��?�K'��*0f0RTi�_VRTSpRTnqEUKkqr���#I*[?����b&':m7GQCL�1�!��sfCRTi=_CRTSpRTnqEU@T? &6L�4tf0RTi9_0RTSUR+nqEVeli YILDIRIM and sister in law Gülay YILDIRIM. They have never hesitated to

tolerate me during hard days and they provided happy and cozy family atmosphere

through the thesis.

ix

And finally I want to thank to my two princesses; Leyla SARAÇ and Irmak

HÜRMERIÇ. They always gave great support to me whenever I need help. Words

are not sufficient to express my gratitude to Irmak and Leyla. Actually, they were

always shoulder-to-shoulder with me and they made me feel what friendship is.

Beyond everything, I am indebted to them for being my friends.

x

I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and

presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that,

as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material

and results that are not original to this work.

Date: Signature:

xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................iii

ÖZ .......................................................................................................................v

DEDICATION...................................................................................................vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................x

LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................xii

LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................xiii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1

1.1. Research Questions........................................................................7

1.2. The Purpose of the Study ...............................................................7

1.3. Hypotheses ....................................................................................7

1.4. Significance of the Study ...............................................................8

1.5. Limitations of the Study.................................................................8

1.6. Definitions of Terms ......................................................................9

1.7. Assumptions of the Study...............................................................9

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................10

2.1. Quality Physical Education ..........................................................10

2.2. Effective Instruction in Physical Education ..................................12

2.3. Academic Learning Time in PE for Coaching .............................16

xii

2.4. Academic Learning Time in PE ...................................................17

III. METHODS .........................................................................................28

3.1. Overall Design .............................................................................28

3.2. Participants ..................................................................................28

3.3. Data Collection Procedures ..........................................................30

3.4. Data Collection Instrument...........................................................32

3.5. Reliability of ALT-PE..................................................................34

3.6. Data Analysis...............................................................................35

IV. RESULTS ...........................................................................................36

4.1. Results of Lesson Context Categories of ALT-PE for Prospective

and In-service Teachers .......................................................................36

4.1.1. General Content Category of Lesson Context ...................37

4.1.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Content Category of Lesson

Context .......................................................................................38

4.1.3. Subject Matter Motor Content Category of Lesson

Context .......................................................................................38

4.2. Results of Learner Involvement Categories of ALT-PE for

Prospective and In-service Teachers ....................................................39

4.2.1. Not Motor Engaged Category of Learner Involvement

Level...........................................................................................39

4.2.2. Motor Engaged Category of Learner Involvement Level ...40

4.3. Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Context Level....................41

4.4. Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Learner Involvement

Level ...................................................................................................43

4.5. One-way Analysis of Variances ALT-PE ......................................45

xiii

V. DISCUSSION .....................................................................................47

5.1 Evaluation of Lesson Context for Prospective and In-service

Teachers ..............................................................................................47

5.2. Evaluation of Learner Involvement for Prospective and In-service

Teachers ..............................................................................................50

5.3. Evaluation of Total ALT-PE for Prospective and In-service

Teachers ..............................................................................................53

5.4. Conclusion and Recommendations................................................54

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................56

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................61

A. Description of ALT-PE Instrument................................................................62

B. ALT-PE Record Sheet ...................................................................................68

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

3.2.1. Information about Grade Level and School Type of Prospective and In-

service Teachers ..................................................................................... 30

3.3.1. Frequencies of Subjects Taught in PE Classes ........................................ 31

3.5.1. Observer Agreements for Context Level and Learner Involvement

Level ...................................................................................................... 34

4.1.1.1. Percentages and Standard Deviations of General Content Category ........ 37

4.1.2.1. Mean Percentages and Standard Deviations of Subject Matter

Knowledge Content Category ................................................................. 38

4.1.3.1. Mean Percentages and Standard Deviations of Subject Matter Motor

Content Category.................................................................................... 39

4.2.1.1. Mean Percentages and Standard Deviations of Not Motor Engaged

Category of Learner Involvement Level.................................................. 40

4.2.2.1. Mean Percentages and Standard Deviations of Motor Engaged

Category of Learner Involvement Level.................................................. 41

4.3.1. MANOVA Results for Context Level ..................................................... 41

4.3.2. ANOVA Results of Context Level for Prospective and In-service PE

Teachers ................................................................................................. 42

4.4.1. MANOVA Results for Learner Involvement Level................................. 43

xv

4.4.2. ANOVA Results of Learner Involvement Level for Prospective and In-

service Teachers ..................................................................................... 45

4.5.1. ALT-PE Results for Prospective and In-service PE Teachers’ Classes .... 46

xvi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1.1. Allocated Time, Engaged Time, and ALT-PE...........................................4

3.4.1. Graphical Presentation of ALT-PE and its Sub Levels ............................33

4.1.1. Graphical Representation of Lesson Context Level.................................37

4.4.1. Graphical Representation of Mostly Used Behaviors in the Classes of

Prospective and In-service Teachers .......................................................44

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Every student from kindergarten through grade 11 should have opportunity to

participate in physical activity, which has many beneficial effects on students’ life.

Studies related to benefits of physical activity on human body indicated that it helps

the development of flexibility, cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and

muscular endurance (Heyward, 1991). Furthermore, regular physical activity can

substantially reduce the risk of developing heart disease, diabetes, colon cancer, and

high blood pressure (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1997).

Students must be given opportunities to gain the knowledge and skills needed

to adopt active lifestyles. USA National Association for Sport and Physical

Education (NASPE) states that quality physical education (PE) helps students

improve the knowledge, attitudes, skills, behaviors, and confidence needed to be

physically active in daily life (NASPE, 1995). The crucial role of PE is to develop

the skill learning, health related physical fitness, physical competence, and cognitive

understanding about physical activity that makes students accept healthy and

physically active life styles. To profit the benefits of physical activity, students

should learn the physical skills and they should join the class activities joyfully

2

(Graham, 1987). PE teacher should give sufficient time to each student to learn and

apply the physical activity.

Physical education teacher should manage the student well to decrease the

non-instructional disruptions and assign longer time for learning. Class activities

must be modified to match student abilities so that optimal amount of learning

occurs. Effective teaching includes good management, good organization and

sufficient time for explanation and demonstration period. In that way sufficient

physical activity time can be allocated for reaching effective teaching.

Physically active involvement of student with the related subject is a major

issue for PE teaching area. Schools are the institutions where physical activity

promotion must be enhanced as they serve eleven years of required physical

education. Also, PE programs for students should focus on promoting regular

physical activity that would be a lifelong habit (Demirhan, 1997). Engaging students

in physical activity and teaching them how to develop and maintain appropriate

physical activity level could help the growing of healthier generations.

In PE lessons, selected practices, drills and other activities should be

appropriate for ability and developmental level of an individual. Motor development

includes the way in which individual acquires skill as a function of that age. So one

of the physical educator’s primary roles is to enhance the acquisition of motor skill

by individuals in a developmentally appropriate manner (Siedentop, 1991). Physical

education teacher should (a) recognize the motor development needs of all students,

(b) select motor activities which meet their needs in an optimal level, and (c)

3

implement instruction in a way that enhances the possibility of those needs being met

in a developmentally appropriate manner (Hawkins, Wiegand, & Behneman, 1983).

Understanding what happens during PE class is crucial for effective teaching.

Metzler (1990) explained that children in PE classes spent about 20-25% of class

time waiting for something to happen (waiting in line, waiting for equipment,

waiting for a turn, waiting for organizational period etc.). They spent up almost 20-

25% of their time for managerial tasks and 20-25% for receiving information from

teacher. Only 25-40% of class time remains for physical activity. Even, some of that

time they might be performing activities that are beyond their physical ability level,

in which case they become either frustrated or bored. In PE classes when student

appropriately perform the skill assigned, the teacher is credited with doing an

effective job (Rate, 1980).

Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (BTES) was conducted in mid-1970s to

understand the student engagement time with the subject matter. In the BTES, three

measures of instructional time were defined (see figure 1.1). Allocated Time is the

whole time period a teacher allocates for instruction and practice in a particular

subject area. Engaged Time is the portion of allocated time that a student is actually

involved with the subject matter. Academic Learning Time (ALT) is that the amount

of engaged time when the student is involved with materials that are appropriate to

his or her ability, resulting in high success and low error rates (Parker, 1989).

Academic Learning Time-Physical Education (ALT-PE) is an application of ALT in

PE setting.

4

Parker and O’Sullivan (1983) stated that Academic Learning Time in

Physical Education (ALT-PE) studies have been done almost exclusively with

experienced teachers as distinct from pre-service and prospective teachers. As

physical education course is based on movement education, teacher educators should

emphasize the importance of giving sufficient time for suitable physical activity. It is

reasonable that teacher educators can hold their student teachers accountable for their

performances during the apprenticeships or other field experiences (Siedentop,

1983).

Figure 1.1. Allocated Time, Engaged Time, and ALT-PE (Adapted from Cruickshank, Jenkins, & Metcalf, 2003)

Academic Learning Time (ALT) provides meaningful information for

assessing teacher effectiveness; that is the teacher who produces higher level of

ALT-PE will be more effective teacher (Rink, 1996; Siedentop, 1983). In addition,

ALT-PE is a powerful concept for effective teaching because it shows a teacher’s

ability to keep students in relevant and appropriate motor skill learning task, two

necessary conditions for learning (Metzler, 1990).

Allocated Time

Engaged Time

ALT-PE

5

ALT-PE has made useful improvements and provided valuable data for

extending knowledge base about teaching, learning, and teacher education. It also

offers many opportunities for teaching and learning in the unique environment of the

gymnasium (Dodds & Rife, 1983). Moreover, it has made significant contributions to

the quality of teaching and coaching through the data based literature (De Marco,

Mancini, Wuest, & Schempp, 1996).

In addition to theoretical explanations, transitions, and management parts, PE

class contains series of movements, sudden actions, temporary and no reproducible

movements; each is unique (Anderson, 1983; Silverman, Dodds, Placek, Shute, &

Rife, 1984). So assessing the student achievement in PE courses is really difficult as

it has both theoretical and practical aspects of physical activity. ALT-PE is a

competent instrument as it shows (a) what constitutes the class context, (b) what

students are doing during the class period, and (c) what portion of the class time is

allocated to appropriate physical activity.

There were two crucial considerations while selecting ALT-PE as a student

criterion variable. First, student behavior category “motor appropriate” represented

the time engaged in a motor task at a difficulty level, which would enhance skill

development. Second, ALT-PE system generated data by observations of individual

students. In addition, the system is relatively simple and observation skills are

acquired rather easily. Moreover, it has other popular and comprehensive categories

that generate data regarding what the students do when they are not in the motor

appropriate category (Hawkins, Wiegand, & Behneman, 1983).

6

ALT-PE instrument is divided into two parts as context level and learner

involvement level. Context level demonstrates how much class time passes with (a)

general content (transition, management, warm-up, break), (b) subject matter

knowledge content (technique, strategy, rules, social behavior, background

information), and (c) subject matter motor content (skill practice, scrimmage/routine,

game, fitness). Learner involvement level demonstrates whether (a) the student is

motor engaged (motor appropriate, motor inappropriate, supporting) or (b) not motor

engaged (off-task, on-task, waiting, interim, cognitive). It demonstrates how much

time is allocated to a subject of the lesson and what the students tend to do in that

particular time zone. It also shows what extend the student is active or inactive

relevant to the subject taught in the PE classes.

Physical education is a unique course in which students are physically active

during the class including warm-up, drills, games, competitions, and all other

practices. One of the important aspects of effective teaching is to increase the

appropriate physical activity time where students perform the appropriate task

successfully (Griffey, 1983; Metzler, 1990; Siedentop, Mand, & Taggart, 1986). So

difficulty level should not be over the ability level of students.

At the end of the study how much class time is spent to physical activity,

theoretical explanations, and class organization can be determined to analyze

teaching effectiveness. Furthermore, how much class time is spent with class

management, warm-up activities, transitions between events, and breaks during the

class period can be understood. Student behaviors were also analyzed in PE classes.

This study was designed to determine how much academic learning time was

experienced in classes of prospective and in-service PE teachers. Thus, ALT-PE

7

instrument provide whole picture of PE lesson and focused on motor appropriate

behaviors on subject matter (e.g. overhead pass in handball or lay-up in basketball

etc.)

1.1. Research Questions

1. How did the prospective and in-service PE teachers structure the class time?

2. What were the student behaviors in the classes of prospective and in-service PE

teachers?

3. What percent of class time was spent with ALT-PE

1.2. Purpose of the Study

The aim of this study was to compare the content and student behaviors of

prospective and in-service teachers in PE classes.

1.3. Hypotheses

1. There was no significant difference between prospective and in-service PE

teachers in terms of lesson context as measured by ALT-PE.

2. There was no significant difference between prospective and in-service PE

teachers in the learner involvement level of the students as measured by ALT-PE.

3. There was no significant difference in ALT-PE scores between the classes of

prospective and in-service PE teachers.

8

1.4. Significance of the Study

Academic Learning Time in Physical Education research has proved to be

one of the most usable forms of research relating to PE teacher effectiveness and

time usage. It provides information about general content, subject matter motor

content, subject matter knowledge content, and successful motor engagement time of

students (Parker, 1989; Silverman, Devillier, & Ramirez, 1991; Randall, 1992).

PE specialists have been studying teaching effectiveness for a long time

(Siedentop, Mand, & Taggart, 1986). ALT-PE, which shows the appropriate and

relevant motor engagement time, has been used since 1980s (Parker, 1989;

Siedentop, 1983). However it is newly used in Turkey and there have been very

limited number of studies done wherein the behaviors of students were

systematically observed. Furthermore, in the literature, researchers investigated

ALT-PE for many aspects but there were few studies that compared the prospective

and in-service PE teachers. Therefore, investigating ALT-PE scores of prospective

and in-service PE teachers would give valuable information about the student

behaviors, lesson contexts, and teaching effectiveness of these two groups of teachers

and would help PE supervisors for better guidance to them.

1.5. Limitations of the Study

It was the intention of the study to acquire data in the natural setting of the

observed classes. There was no control of the researcher over the teachers, students,

or selected lesson contents. The subject pool was limited with 54 teachers (26

prospective and 28 in-service) and 162 students.

9

1.6. Definitions of Terms

Academic Learning Time: is the amount of time a given student spends actively

engaged in academic tasks he/she is mostly successful at doing (Cruickshank, 2003).

Academic Learning Time-Physical Education: is an amount of time a student spends

in motor skill tasks that are considered relevant and appropriate motor skill learning

tasks (Metzler, 1983).

Prospective PE teacher: is student teacher who learns about teaching before

preservice teaching stage through previous experience as students in school

programs.

In-service PE teacher: A teacher who has already been teaching physical education

courses in schools.

1.7. Assumption of the Study

It was assumed that inservice and prospective teachers gave PE courses in

regular routines in every aspect during videotaping

10

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Literature related to quality physical education, effective instruction, and

academic learning time in physical education studies will be presented in the

following sections.

2.1. Quality Physical Education

Physical education is a process through which an individual obtains optimal

physical, mental, and social skills and fitness through physical activity. Physical

education programs should increase every individual’s physical mental, and social

benefits from physical activities and develop healthy life style skills and attitudes

(Lumpkin, 1990). We can reach these goals through the quality PE programs. Quality

PE is not a specific curriculum or program; it reflects an instructional philosophy

that:

• Emphasizes knowledge and skills for a lifetime of physical activity.

• Meets needs of all students

• Keeps all students active for most of the class period.

• Builds students’ confidence in their physical abilities.

11

• Influences moral development by providing students with opportunities to

assume leadership, cooperate with others, and accept responsibility for their

own behavior.

• Is an enjoyable experience for students. (NASPE-USA, 1995).

Having quality PE programs we can have physically educated person: who

1. has learned skills necessary to perform a variety of physical activities,

2. is physically fit,

3. participates regularly in physical activity,

4. knows the implications of and the benefits from involvement in

physical activities,

5. values physical activity and its contribution to a healthful lifestyle

(NASPE-USA, 1995)

It is also important that quality PE requires optimum facilities, equipments, and

u�v)wmx�yYz[y�{%zd|}{�~�z[�+��u�z[v)�b~��I�U|�� y�� �)�C|}����� u"������{��C�Vv�� �������������"�9~�z[��zOy �Vz�����z>|lz ���"~G��|2�.��|2u�� �lz�zOvreach PE course objectives in Turkey because of crowded classes, inadequate

facilities and equipments in schools. Moreover, Çiçek and Bizati (2001) specified

that 80% of schools did not have sports hall in Ankara. These are obstacles to reach

quality PE and needed to be solved.

Ministry of National Education, professional associations, academic experts, and

PE teachers across the country should focus on promoting and implementing quality

PE programs that emphasize participation in life long physical activity among all

12

students. Providing intensive instruction in the motor and self-management skills

needed to enjoy a wide variety of physical activity experiences, including

competitive and noncompetitive activities.

There are many characteristics of quality physical education. One of these

characteristics is related with motor skill learning. So if physical educators want to

have quality physical education, he/she should give importance to the physical

activity promotion and provide sufficient opportunity for students to learn new motor

skills. It should not be forgotten that students learn more when they practice more,

especially learning motor skills.

2.2. Effective Instruction in Physical Education

Siedentop (1983) defined effective teaching, as it was the instruction that

results in intended learning. Physical education should be able to demonstrate clear

outcomes and students should be able to show recognizable achievement gains while

performing physical tasks. Students must be more skilled, more fit, more committed

to an active, healthy, playful life style (Siedentop, Mand, & Taggart, 1986). They

also gave important teaching tips which reflect the characteristics of effective

instruction. These characteristics were (1) clear and appropriate instruction, (2) well-

prepared, efficient, and informative demonstrations, (3) active supervision during

practice, (4) meaningful feedback, and (5) proper accountability.

Tousignant, Brunelle, Pieron & Dhillon, (1983) investigated the links

between the various dimensions of the teaching-learning process and to identify

characteristics of more and less effective teachers. They realized that the best

variable to predict teacher effectiveness was not the time students spent engaged with

13

a task. Teachers who provided their students with more “time to practice activities

specifically related to learning objectives” were more effective. He also compared

lessons taught by experienced teachers and student teachers. He found that

experienced teachers obtained a higher student engagement during PE classes.

Siedentop (1991) specified the characteristics of effective physical education

teacher who:

• Allocates as much time as possible to subject matter and provide sufficient

opportunity to learn

• Communicates well and have realistic expectations for achievement

• Is good managers who prepare well-developed organizational structures to

increase time for student engagement in academic activities

• Arranges meaningful activities related to academic objectives. Those

activities are suited to the achievement levels of the class and are challenging,

yet allow for high success rates.

• Creates and maintain soft transitions through the tasks

• Communicates with students directly during the physical activity

• Monitors the students and provide active supervision.

• Holds students accountable for completing task.

14

• Is clear in their presentations, and to be enthusiastic about the subject matter

and their students, and maintain warm classroom climate in which student

attitudes can be positive.

Physical educator should take into consideration grouping students, arranging

drills and use of practice area for effective instruction. These considerations are

important aspects for increasing engagement time. Hould and Brunelle (1981)

investigated the relative effectiveness of various types of group organization among

young hockey players. They found that the most effective group formation in terms

of engagement time was when the players were freely scattered. In free phase, they

had three times more engagement time than squad phase. On the other hand, they

realized that the highest rate of engagement was not always the most effective one.

As a result, they concluded that while identifying the most appropriate group

formation, one must take into account the characteristics of the skills being practiced,

and the skill level of the participants, as well as the rate of engagement obtained with

a particular group formation.

Effective instructions give importance to individual instruction, as each

student is different. Aufderheide (1980) compared the amount of academic learning

time between regular and handicapped students. She also examined the differences in

the amount of ALT provided to students by users and non-users of individualized

instruction. Seven teachers and their 60 students from each group were the subjects

of the study. Results showed that the students within the classes of users of

individualized instruction were engaged significantly greater amount of ALT than

were the students within the classes of non-users of individualized instruction. There

was no significant difference in the amount of ALT engaged in by mainstreamed

15

handicapped and regular students. So individual instruction can increase the

engagement time whether the students are handicapped or regular.

One of the important characteristics of effective instruction is giving a brief

explanation about the subject matter. It was emphasized that a certain amount of

cognitive learning could enhance motor responding success but it was unlikely that

most students learn best by listening only. They must make motor responses to

acquire motor skills (Metzler, 1983). Then, teachers constantly monitor the relevance

of learning tasks and their relationship to desired lesson goals. It would seem that in

a handball class any activity relevant to handball could accrue ALT-PE. This is not

true approach. If the immediate goal is learning overhead pass, any activity not

directly related with learning that particular skill, must be considered not relevant.

Because it makes no progress toward learning overhead pass (Metzler, 1983).

Birdwell (1980) investigated the effects of modification of teacher behavior

on the ALT of selected students. For this purpose three in-service PE teachers, one of

each at the elementary, junior high, and senior high school level, participated in

instructions. The instructions targeted for change were management time, feedback,

and student non-engagement time. Data was reported as a percentage of intervals (6

sec observe/6 sec record) for each of the three dependent variables: management

time, feedback, and student non-engagement. ALT-PE data showed that there was an

association between changes in teacher behaviors and increases in student ALT.

Significant increases in student ALT-PE appeared to be associated with decreases in

teacher’s management time, increases in feedback to students and d ecreases in time

spent not-engaged in PE content.

16

Teachers should try to maximize the student participation as much as

possible. Rink (1996) stated, “Students who spend more time in good practice learn

more”. Students learn more when they practice more should not surprise anyone,

particularly when it comes to the learning motor skills. Similarly, if a physical

educator wants students to learn a motor skill they have to be engaged with subject

matter at an appropriate level of difficulty for a sufficient amount of time to produce

learning (Rink, 1996; Silverman, Devillier, & Ramirez, 1991).

2.3. Academic Learning Time-Physical Education for Coaching

Metzler (1990) explained construct of ALT-PE so important for effective

teaching/learning environment. He also mentioned about the usefulness of ALT-PE

and its’ alternatives for supervision. ALT -PE Event Recording System (ALT-

PEERS) and ALT-PE Placheck Recording System (ALT-PEP) were the devised

models for using supervision (Metzler, 1990). These models were used to provide

feedback about the effective usage of class time.

ALT-PE instrument is used for providing feedback both in the area of

teaching and coaching. Rischard (1981, cited in Tousignant, Brunelle, Pieron &

Dhillon, 1983) developed a series of sub-categories under the subject matter

categories of ALT-PE. His aim was to describe the specificity of the content being

presented during training sessions in soccer. As a result, he was able to provide the

observed coach with specific feedback on the time devoted to the various elements of

the program, and on the athletes’ behavior in relation to a particular subject matter.

Data showed that athletes were using 50% ALT for practicing strategies, and 35% of

17

ALT practicing of motor skills. Thus these findings pointed out a doubt about the

usefulness of those skill practices because of limited ALT.

In another study, McLean (1981, cited in Tousignant, Brunelle, Pieron &

Dhillon, 1983) investigated the ALT scores to provide feedback on engagement and

success rate of basketball players considering their position on the court. The data

revealed that forwards and guards had an ALT of 62% while the centers had 66%

during practice session. Actually it was expected that centers should have had more

ALT than forwards and guards. Another study result used to provide feedback to the

coach was the guards’ rates of failures (8%) when compared to others (3% and 2%).

This shows that basic skills of guards need to be developed as they play with the ball

for a longer time.

ALT-PE was mainly used in teaching area but it was also used in coaching

area (basketball, soccer, ice hockey, etc.) to see the appropriate activity time and to

give the feedback to players about their performances. Dixon (1997) investigated the

ALT-PE scores of basketball players from four different colleges. He stated that

athletic settings tend to produce greater academic learning time than physical

education settings. In his study, 43% of total training time spent with motor

appropriate behaviors in a basketball unit.

2.4. Academic Learning Time in Physical Education

Many researchers have claimed that the major determining factors

distinguishing PE course the best from the poor were higher rates of appropriate

learning time and lower rates of non-instructional activities (Beauchamp, Darst, &

Thompson, 1990; Metzler, 1990; Siedentop, 1991; Templin, 1983). After his reviews

18

on ALT-PE Mc Leish (1981 cited in Siedentop, 1983) reached the following

conclusion:

The theoretical basis of the ALT-PE system is what is now conventionally referred to as learning theory. By this we mean that we accept as established fact certain basic principles: (a) learning is maximized in direct proportion to the number and type of opportunities to learn; (b) we learn best by concentrating on practicing the motor, cognitive, or psychomotor skill by actually doing; or (c) by observing others performing the skill at a difficulty level which results in a level of failure rate greater than 10 percent. Effective teaching means structuring the lesson to maximize the amount of time in direct practice by each individual at a level, which at once ensures a continuing development of the skill compatible with the minimal number of mistakes. (Mc Leish, 1981, p.29)

There were different kinds of studies that analyze physical education lessons

and tried to understand level of their effectiveness. Beauchamp, Darst, and

Thompson (1990) observed 75 PE lessons in 15 different high schools. They

observed that 65% of total class period was on subject matter motor content but

ALT-PE value was only 38%. Actually, this value was quite high when we compare

it with previous studies (Metzler & Young, 1984; Parker, 1989). In addition to that,

out of 17 different lessons, fitness grouping classes had highest ALT-PE scores

(50%) while the gymnastics classes showed the lowest ALT-PE scores (18%). Also it

was noteworthy that 20 % of total class time was spending with waiting time which

is an obstacle for higher ALT-PE.

ALT-PE has received substantial support from studies within PE. McLeish

(1981 cited in Siedentop, 1983) administered a project involving one hundred

videotaped PE lesson. After analyzing the videotapes, McLeish concluded the notion

about ALT-PE:

It is one of the major impressions received in the use of the ALT-PE system that this supplies the missing element, or indeed the major

19

component, for evaluating effective teaching in PE. Time on-task, ALT, and opportunities to learn—call it what you will, and measure it if you can—this is the vital component of effective teaching in general (p.31).

LaMaster and Lacy (1993) examined teacher behaviors and student ALT and

analyzed the relationship between teacher behaviors and student ALT in junior high

school PE settings. Nine selected in-service teachers and their classes were

videotaped four times. Data indicated that students spent 14.6% of their time

engaged in ALT-PE. They emphasize that length of general content and subject

matter knowledge content should be decreased and length of subject matter motor

content should be increased. The low amount of ALT-PE may be attributed to the

type of activities, size of class, class structure and organization.

Lacy, La Master, and Tommaney (1996) examined student behaviors, teacher

behaviors, and their relationship with each other. The subjects in this study were

seven experienced elementary PE teachers and their classes. Each of the seven

teachers was videotaped four times. The mean size of the 28 classes was 39 students.

Classes ranged in length from 16 to 39 minutes with average length being 24

minutes. There was variety of sports taught in the classes. Student behaviors were

measured with ALT-PE scores and teacher behaviors was measured with Arizona

State University Observation Instrument. The mean ALT-PE was 20.1%. They

emphasized that management behaviors and lots of explanations had negative

relationship with ALT-PE.

Silverman, Devillier, and Ramirez (1991) determined whether the ALT-PE

system (version 2) was valid as a process approach to estimate student achievement.

Sixty students from 10 PE classes (9 middle and 1 high school) participated the

20

study. Correlations were calculated between achievement scores of students. Skill

practice was shown to correlate with achievement on the selected skill when the

students were engaged at a motor appropriate level. It was found that skill practice-

motor appropriate category was related to achievement for summed and percent of

intervals. Summed motor appropriate intervals and related to achievement. The

results showed a significant relationship between ALT-PE and teacher effectiveness.

Beckett (1989) tried to determine the relationship between ALT-PE and

student achievement using an Experimental Teaching Units (ETU). Group A, group

B, and Control group were pre-tested and post-tested at the conclusion of instruction.

While group A received a lesson with a brief explanation/demonstration period,

group B received a lesson with a lengthy explanation/demonstration period. Mean

ALT-PE results were 53.5% for group A and 33.5% for group B. The result of this

study has found a significant relationship between ALT-PE and student achievement.

In a similar study, Metzler and Young (1984) examined the student process

behavior differences within Experimental Teaching Unit (ETU). Two different PE

teachers designed their classes under the same facilities without observing each

other. Mean ALT-PE for two groups were 23.6% and 9.9%. Reason for this big

difference was divergent lesson planning which give importance to the student

achievement behaviors enhance the ALT-PE percentages.

In their study, Griffey and Housner (1991) focused the differences between

experienced (n=8) and inexperienced (n=8) PE teachers for many respects. They

were analyzed PE classes according to categories (a) student on-task (what the

teacher had specified in terms of a movement activity), (b) student off-task

21

(physically active but not doing what the teacher had specified), (c) student receiving

information from teacher, (d) student waiting for a turn at a piece of equipment or

activity, (e) student relocating the another station or activity, and (f) others. At the

end they observed 30.3% and 29% on-task student engagement time for experienced

and inexperienced PE teachers respectively. Major differences were found for

receiving information percentages (48.1% for experienced and 30.8% for

experienced teachers) and waiting percentages (11% for experienced and 23.9% for

inexperienced PE teachers).

In an exemplary elementary PE program, Lacy, Willison, and Hicks (1998)

observed first grade and their veteran instructor who has received several awards for

his programs and teaching excellence. The instructor followed a curriculum that

incorporated an introductory activity, fitness routine, lesson focus, and closing game

in each lesson. Observed student behaviors were motor appropriate, receiving

information, waiting, transition/management, and off-task behaviors. Results

indicated that students spent great amount (49%) of class time in motor activity

followed by receiving information (24%). Also they noted that

transition/management time (8%) and waiting time (15%) were quite low.

Behets (1996) compared PE specialist teachers and classroom teachers. He

found no significant difference between two groups concerning active learning time

(engagement time). Engagement time for PE specialist teacher was 45.4% and 41.2%

for others.

Metzler (1990) reviewed the research on time in PE classes and he found that

teachers spent 25 to 50 percent of class time in non-instructional activities and he

22

emphasized that teachers ignore individual students and their maximum

participation. He also noted that (1) students spent only 20 to 50 percent of their time

in related activities; (2) students differ in the amount of time they spent on

achievement-related learning; (3) student time varies with the activity in which

students are engaged; and (4) ALT is low regardless of who the teacher is. Moreover

he found that individual sports get more time on task than team sports but he realized

that there was no difference on ALT percentages of boys and girls (Metzler, 1989

cited in Harrison and Blakemore, 1992).

Many researchers have confirmed that decreasing management time and

increasing engagement time for individual student have positive relation with ALT-

PE. Furthermore, Landin, Hawkins, and Wiegand (Cited in Harrison and Blakemore,

1992) suggest that using additional equipment and facilities decrease waiting time

and increase activity time.

Metzler, (1983) listed some points to increase the ALT-PE:

Do I plan ahead for reduced management time?

Is my first activity posted to reduce pre-class waiting time?

Do I assign learning tasks based on observed individual student skill levels?

Are learning tasks sequenced with stated criteria for proficiency?

Do I base individual learning progressions on observed student skill proficiency?

Do I design feedback mechanisms into learning tasks for students?

Do I provide high rates of specific feedback until student progress is noted?

23

Do I plan for “active” lecture/demonstrations?

Do I “hustle” students between drills and class activities to reduce transition?

Do I modify games to allow for more direct student participation and skill practice?

Do I plan learning tasks for those students not playing in a game (substitutes)?

Do I have enough equipment for maximum student participation in drills?

Do I use available equipment and facilities to their maximum potential?

Do I plan relevant activities for students who must wait for equipment/facilities?

Is my student-to-equipment ratio low? (Do I have enough equipment?)

Is my class size manageable?

Is the observed range of student skill level narrow?

Do I constantly monitor student time-on-task?

Do I try new instructional patterns to improve time-on-task?

Martinek and Karper (1983) have added different perspective to Metzler’s list

for increasing ALT-PE. They believed that explaining the benefits of physical

activity increase the expectancy level of students from physical education lessons.

For this aim they observed the low expectancy students (n=2) and high expectancy

students (n=2) and measured the ALT-PE levels of those students over a 6-week

period. As a result high expectancy student showed much higher amounts of ALT-PE

(76%) than the other (23%). This big difference showed the importance of increasing

ALT of low expectancy students in physical education courses. It can be said that

24

after organizing the class, physical education teacher should maintain and develop

the expectancy level of students for better participation.

Godbout, Brunelle, and Tousignant (1983) studied on how much ALT is

experienced by elementary and secondary school students during regular PE classes

and investigated three major ALT variables, that is, time devoted to specific content

areas, learner engaged time with subject matter, and student’s success rate. The mean

ALT-PE results were 31.3% and 36.5% respectively for the elementary and

secondary school level. Furthermore, from one-fifth to one-third of class period was

spent in other than PE content activities (transition, management, breaks etc.)

Skill practice, scrimmage, and game context are the subparts of the subject

matter motor content. Among these three parts, Hastie (1998) stated that students

showed the high level of ALT-PE in game context and they showed the higher level

of off-task behavior during skill practice period.

Silverman, Dodds, Placek, Shute, and Rife (1984) compared the combined

data from two previously reported studies, which focused on ALT-PE variables.

Results showed that 33.6% of total class time was spent engaged with the subject

matter, 17.1% in motor activity, and 11.5 in a motor activity at an easy difficulty

level.

Hastie (1994) compared the three PE teachers according to their ALT-PE

results. Two of them who spent significantly more time with waiting for turns, being

interim activity and off-task had a significantly lesser percentage of student

engagement in motor appropriate activity than the other teacher. He concluded that

higher levels of ALT-PE, lower levels of off-task and non-participatory behavior,

25

together with more class time devoted to setting performance standards were all

indicators of effective teachers. So one of teachers was classified as a more effective

teacher, and other two teachers were classified as less effective teachers. Percentages

of more effective teacher and less effective teachers were 42.9% versus 23.3% and

27.7% for ALT-PE, 8.2% versus 15.1 and 17.3% for interim, 18% versus 26.5 and

30.4% for waiting time, 3.3% versus 5.9% and 11.6% for off-task behaviors

respectively.

Byra and Coulon (1994) compared the instructional behaviors of a group of

pre-service teachers across planned and unplanned teaching conditions. They found

that learner spent more time with general content (or non-physical education content)

in unplanned lessons (31.7%) than planned lessons (24.7%). Although there was no

significant differences for motor appropriate category between planned (18.9%) and

unplanned (18.2%) lessons, results suggested that learners spent less time in non-

instructional aspects of activity, less time waiting for turn, and less time being off-

task during activity time in planned lessons.

Van der Mars, Vogler, Darst, and Cusimano (1994) studied the effects of

teacher location, teacher’s rate of movement, and feedback on studen t ALT-PE. At

the end, teacher movement correlated significantly with student’s ALT -PE while the

feedback and location did not. Results were 57.8% for on-task behavior, 8.24% for

off-task behavior, 39.2% for total motor engagement and 31.9% for motor

appropriate engagement.

Johns, Ha, and Macfarlane (2001) studied the effects of increased fitness and

decreased skill practice and game activity time on ALT-PE percentage. While both

26

groups of teachers focused on knowledge as subject matter and motor activities.

Experimental group focused more fitness but less skill practice and game activity

than the control group. Students from the control group had more off-task time

(73.6%) than students from experimental group (65.3%). Moreover, motor

appropriate time for students from experimental group was 31.9% but this value was

22.7% for control group.

In their study, Ward, Barrett, Evans, Doutis, Nguyen, and Johnson (1999)

examined the student participation between two schools with the same subject

matter. They found that organization of the classes was so important that drills,

practices, and games should include as many students as at the same time. Not motor

engaged times were 72% and 61% for these two schools. Main reason for this

difference was more waiting time in PE classes. Motor appropriate time was quite

high (42%) in a PE class that had short period of waiting time. Other two teachers

had mid-high scores of motor appropriate time (27% and 32%).

An effective teacher manages students well to decrease non-instructional

disruptions and increase time for learning. After that he/she organizes that learning

time with activities matched the student capacities so that an optimal amount of

learning occurs (Siedentop, 1991). Then effective teaching should be evaluated

primarily by observations of student work involvement and student outcomes.

Physical education authorities have been studying on reaching effective

physical education course for many years. It was mainly emphasized that students

must be engaged in physical activity for most of the class time. When related

literature reviewed, researchers who were interested in ALT-PE found that students

27

spent very limited time with an appropriate physical activity related with subject

matter in PE classes. They emphasized that non-instructional time such as,

management, transition, too much theoretical knowledge, organization of equipment

and drills should be decreased in PE classes.

In review, an observational system exists which is capable of producing valid

and reliable measures of ALT in a physical education setting. ALT-PE system is

interval and categorical in nature and has been used to identify student involvement

in a physical education setting. It has been proven to be positively correlated with

teaching effectiveness and quality physical education.

28

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

Overall design of the study and information about the participants, data

collection instrument, data collection procedure, and data analysis procedure were

presented in the following sections.

3.1. Overall Design

Prospective and in-service physical education teachers were participants of

the study. As direct (live) observation could be less objective and less reliable,

videotape recorder was used in the study. Videotape recorder provides a permanent

account of the observation for future examination (Turner & Meyer, 2000). This

record could be reviewed over and over again, which was an important feature in

case there were some uncertainties about how a behavior should be coded. Because

the interval recording system was used in the study, direct (live) observation was

very risky in case of missed intervals. Furthermore, videotape recorder was also

essential for intra-observer reliability. So all teachers were videotaped during their

one 40-minute-lesson (N=54).

Pilot study was conducted as training session. It was questioned whether

observers made same judgment for same behavior during pilot study. As reliability

29

was prerequisite for collecting accurate data, inter-observer and intra-observer

agreements were conducted with 10% of total lessons (n=5). After reaching

acceptable reliability, main data collection was conducted.

3.2. Participants

Participants of this study were 28 in-service teachers (15 female, 13 male)

and 26 prospective teachers (2 female, 24 male). Prospective and in-service teachers

were selected to understand the differences in; (1) how they constructed the lesson,

and (2) how their student spent the class time. For this reason three students from

each class of prospective and in-service PE teachers were observed

In-service teachers were from the 17 different schools (13 public, 4 private) in

Ankara. Seventeen in-service PE teachers were teaching at elementary level (6-7-8)

and 11 of them were teaching at secondary level (9-10-11). Schools were selected

according to their availability and teachers were selected with their willingness.

Official permission for each school was taken from Turkish Ministry of National

Education. School principals agreed the videotaping of the PE class in schools.

Prospective teachers were from physical education teacher education

program. They were 4th year students of Middle East Technical University who were

taking the “Field Practice” course during the spring semester of 2000 -2001 academic

year. Elementary and secondary level students of prospective and in-service teacher

from different public and private schools took part in the study. Demographic

information about the participants was given in Table 3.2.1.

30

Table 3.2.1. Information about Grade Level and School Type of Prospective and In-service Teachers. Prospective PE

Teachers (n)

In-service PE

Teachers (n)

Total (n)

Teaching Level

Elementary level (6-7-8) 21 17 38

Secondary level (9-10-11) 5 11 16

School Type

Public - 13 13

Private 4 4 8

3.3. Data Collection Procedure

Before videotaping in-service teachers’ PE classes, proper authorization were

obtained from Ministry of National Education and school principals. Prospective

teachers were videotaped during their field experiences and in-service teachers were

videotaped in their schools. Prospective and in-service teachers were videotaped

during a regular 40-minute class period in their natural setting. The video camera

was placed so that all students and the instructor were included in recordings.

Cordless microphone was also used to record verbal behaviors of teachers.

Mean class size were 25 (for prospective teachers) and 24 students (for in-

service teachers). There were variety of subjects taught in the classes during data

collection. Frequencies of subjects taught in PE classes were given in Table 3.3.1.

31

Table 3.3.1. Frequencies of Subjects Taught in PE Classes

Subjects Taught Prospective

Teachers’ PE Classes

In-service Teachers’

PE Classes

Total

Handball 3 3 6

Basketball 2 9 11

Volleyball 1 7 8

Gymnastics 5 3 8

Track and Field 9 5 14

Soccer - 1 1

Step 2 - 2

Tennis 2 - 2

Educational Games 2 - 2

Total 26 28 54

The observation format for ALT-PE was an interval recording system in

which the first 6 seconds of the interval was used to observe and second 6 seconds to

record the observation on the coding sheet. One regular class of each teacher was

observed (n=54). Three target students from each class were randomly selected and

observed in sequence for an entire class period. So there were 78 observed students

from the classes of prospective teachers and 84 observed students from the classes of

in-service teachers.

32

A pre-programmed audiotape was used to provide observe/record signals to

keep the observations in the proper order and time (e.g. 0 sec: observe …………

6thsecond: code1 …… 12th second: observe………18th sec: code2 ……etc.).

3.4. Data Collection Instrument

The Academic Learning Time-Physical Education (1982 Revision)

instrument was used to record the student behaviors and lesson context (Parker,

1989). The ALT-PE instrument focuses on student behavior in relation to class

content. The ALT-PE instrument separates behaviors into two levels of decision

making: context level, which is concerned with the behavior of the entire class, and

learner involvement level, which is concerned with individual student behavior.

The context level describes the focus of the class content. The behaviors

recorded describe the amount of time the class is engaged in specific behavior related

to the assigned activity. The context level is divided into three subparts, each

containing several behavioral categories: general content, subject matter knowledge

content, and subject matter motor content. The context level categories were

summarized in Figure 3.4.1.

The learner involvement level describes the amount of time a selected

student is involved. In this category the individual will be either motor skilled

engaged or not motor skill engaged. The ALT-PE categories for the learner

involvement were summarized in Figure 3.4.1.

Definitions of both the context level and learner involvement level categories

are given in Appendix A.

33

Figure 3.4.1. Graphical Presentation of ALT-PE and its Sub Levels

33

ALT-PE

A. Context Level B. Learner Involvement Level

General Content Subject Matter Knowledge

Content

Subject Matter Motor Content

Not Motor Engaged Motor Engaged

Transition

Management

Break

Warm-up

Technique

Strategy

Rule

Social Behavior

Skill Practice

Scrimmage

Game

Fitness

Interim

Waiting

Off-task

On-task

Cognitive

Motor Appropriate

Motor Inappropriate

Supporting

Background

34

3.5. Reliability of ALT-PE

Inter observer agreement (for 5 classes) was made with two observer. Intra

observer agreement (for 5 classes) was made in different days to ensure the accuracy

of the data collection. Scored-Interval (S-I) method was used to see observer

reliability scores. As van der Mars (1989) stated, S-I method was considered the

most rigorous method of estimating observer agreement for interval data. The

formula for the S-I method is:

Agreements/(Agreements + Disagreements) x 100 = % of Agreement

Agreements: The number of agreements of observers on the same lesson or the

number of agreements of the same observer on his/her observations at two different

times.

Disagreements: The number of disagreements of observers on the same lesson or the

number of disagreements of the same observer on his/her observations at two

different times.

Results of observer agreements for context level and learner involvement

level were given in Table 3.4.1.

Table 3.5.1. Observer Agreements for Context Level and Learner Involvement level

Inter observer agreement Intra observer agreement

Context Level 97% (93% – 100%) 97% (96% – 99%)

Learner Involvement Level 95% (89% – 100%) 98% (95% – 100%)

35

3.6. Data Analysis Procedure

Mean percentages of Context Level and Learner Involvement Level were

reported for both prospective and in-service teachers as descriptive statistics.

Multivariate Analysis of Variances was performed to determine differences between

prospective and in-service teachers in terms of lesson context and learner

involvement as dependent variables. Univariate Analysis of Variances was

performed to determine differences between prospective and in-service teachers in

terms of ALT-PE scores as dependent variables. The confidence level for

interpretation purposes of all statistical tests was set at .05.

36

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in context level,

learner involvement level, and ALT-PE scores of prospective and in-service teachers.

To examine the differences descriptive statistics, multivariate analysis of variances,

and one-way analysis of variances were conducted. Results of these parts were

presented in the following sections.

4.1. Results of Lesson Context Categories of ALT-PE for Prospective and In-

service Teachers

Lesson Context categories divided into three groups. These are (a) general

content, (b) subject matter knowledge content, and (c) subject matter motor content.

While prospective PE teachers spent 33.7% of class time with general content, in-

service PE teachers spent 39.3% of class time with general content. They had similar

amount of subject matter knowledge content. In-service PE teachers spent 37.3% and

prospective PE teachers spent 45.1% of class time with subject matter motor content.

Figure 4.1.1 indicated the graphical representation of the lesson context percentages

of prospective and in-service PE teachers.

37

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

G eneral content K now ledge content M otor content

L esson C ontext

Per

cen

tage

Inservice

P rospectice

Figure 4.1.1. Graphical Representation of Lesson Context Level for Prospective and In-service PE Teachers

4.1.1. General Content Category of Lesson Context

In-service teachers spent more time with general content (39.3%) than

prospective teachers (33.7%). In-service and prospective PE teachers assign 20.2%

and 12.5% of class time to warm-up, and 5.9% and 9.9% of class time to

management skills respectively. Percentages and standard deviations of general

content category were given in Table 4.1.1.1

Table 4.1.1.1. Percentages and Standard Deviations of General Content Category General Content Prospective PE teachers In-service PE teachers

Mean (%) SD Mean (%) SD

Transition 10.3 5.0 12.9 5.7

Management 9.9 6.1 5.9 2.7

Break 1.0 1.8 0.3 0.5

Warm-up 12.5 7.8 20.2 7.7

Total 33.7 39.3

38

4.1.2. Subject Matter Knowledge Content Category of Lesson Context

In-service and prospective PE teachers spent similar amount of time for

subject matter knowledge content (23.4% and 21.4% respectively). Both prospective

and in-service PE teachers spent major percent of Subject Matter Knowledge Content

for technique and strategy categories. Percentages and standard deviations of subject

matter knowledge content category were given in Table 4.1.2.1

Table 4.1.2.1. Mean Percentages and Standard Deviations of Subject Matter Knowledge Content Category

Prospective teachers In-service teachers Subject Matter Knowledge Content

Mean (%) SD Mean (%) SD

Technique 11.4 6.3 13.3 6.5

Strategy 8.7 9.0 6.5 3.3

Rules 0.1 0.5 0.4 1.1

Social Behavior 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.6

Background 0.8 2.1 2.9 3.9

Total 21.1 23.4

4.1.3. Subject Matter Motor Content Category of Lesson Context

Prospective and in-service PE teachers spent 45.1% and 37.3% of class time

with subject matter motor content respectively. Skill practice was mostly emphasized

part of subject matter motor content category by both prospective and in-service PE

teachers. Percentages and standard deviations of subject matter motor content

category were given in Table 4.1.3.1

39

Table 4.1.3.1. Mean Percentages and Standard Deviations of Subject Matter Motor Content

Prospective teachers In-service teachers Subject Matter Motor Content

Mean (%) SD Mean (%) SD

Skill Practice 31.9 16.4 25.6 14.2

Scrimmage 5.7 9.4 5.6 7.9

Game 6.7 15.8 4.5 8.6

Fitness 0.8 1.8 1.6 3.1

Total 45.1 37.3

4.2. Results of Learner Involvement Categories of ALT-PE for Prospective and

In-service Teachers

The learner involvement categories involved observations made in conjuction

with content areas. Learner involvement category included two parts; Motor engaged

and not motor engaged. Learner involvement observations were made on three

randomly chosen students during the class period. Individual student participated in

motor activity for one fifth of total class time.

4.2.1. Not Motor Engaged Category of Learner Involvement Level

Results indicated that students in Prospective and In-service PE teachers’ PE

classes spent similar amount of time for not motor engaged activities (Table 4.2.1.1.).

Students spent 61% of total time with on-task behavior in the classes of in-service PE

teachers, this rate decreases to 45% in the classes of prospective PE teachers. Off-

task behavior and waiting time of students were found higher in PE classes of

prospective teachers. Percentages and standard deviations of not motor engaged

category were given in Table 4.2.1.1

40

Table 4.2.1.1. Mean Percentages and Standard Deviations of Not Motor Engaged Category of Learner Involvement Level Not Motor Engaged Prospective teachers In-service teachers

Mean (%) SD Mean (%) SD

Interim 1.6 2.7 0.4 0.9

Waiting 20.7 14.0 15.5 9.2

Off-task 12.3 7.5 1.7 1.9

On-task 45.4 9.8 61.0 11.7

Cognitive 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

Total 80.1 78.7

4.2.2. Motor Engaged Category of Learner Involvement Level

Results showed that in both prospective and in-service PE teachers’ classes,

students were provided almost all percent of motor engaged activity at an appropriate

level. Percentages and standard deviations of motor engaged category were given in

Table 4.2.2.1

Table 4.2.2.1. Mean Percentages and Standard Deviations of Motor Engaged Category of Learner Involvement Level Motor Engaged Prospective teachers In-service teachers

Mean (%) SD Mean (%) SD

M. Appropriate 18.4 10.2 20.2 10.1

M. Inappropriate 1.3 2.0 0.4 1.0

M. Supporting 0.3 0.8 0.6 1.8

Total 20.0 21.2

4.3. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) for Context Level

Multivariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to determine the effect of

the two groups (prospective and in-service teachers) on the context level (transition,

41

management, break, warm-up, technique, strategy, background, rule, social behavior,

practice, scrimmage, game, fitness). MANOVA results showed overall significant

differences between the groups.(Hotelings T2 = 2.22 F(12,41) = 7.59 p<.001) as

indicated in Table 4.3.1.

Table 4.3.1. MANOVA results for context level Effect F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

Teacher Hotelings T2 7.586 12 41 .001

Follow up univariate analysis of variances demonstrated significant

differences in context level between prospective and in-service teachers. Prospective

PE teachers spent significantly more time with management (9.9%) than in-service

PE teachers (5.9%).

Results also indicated that in-service PE teachers spent significantly more

time with warm-up activities (20.2%) than prospective PE teachers (12.5%). And in-

service PE teachers also gave more background knowledge (2.9%) than prospective

PE teachers (0.8%). Subsequent ANOVA results of context level for prospective and

in-service teachers were given in Table 4.3.2.

42

Table 4.3.2. ANOVA Results of Context Level for Prospective and In-service PE Teachers

df F p

General Content

Transition 1 3.173 n.s

Management 1 10.073 <.05*

Break 1 3.868 n.s

Warm-up 1 13.097 <.05*

Subject Matter Knowledge Content

Technique 1 1.175 n.s

Strategy 1 1.388 n.s

Rules 1 1.887 n.s

Social Behavior 1 3.097 n.s

Background 1 5.993 <.05*

Subject Matter Motor Content

Skill Practice 1 2.275 n.s

Scrimmage 1 .000 n.s

Game 1 .525 n.s

Fitness 1 1.437 n.s

4.4. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) for Learner Involvement

Level

Multivariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to determine the effect of

the two groups (prospective and in-service teachers) on the learner involvement level

(waiting, off-task, on-task, interim, cognitive, motor appropriate, motor

inappropriate, motor supporting). Significant differences were found between the

43

prospective and in-service PE teachers (Hotelings T2 = 2.52 F(7,46) = 16.56 p<.001) as

indicated in Table 4.4.1.

Table 4.4.1. MANOVA Results for Learner Involvement Level Effect F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

Teacher Hotelings T2 16.559 7 46 .001

Univariate analysis of variances on each dependent variable was conducted as

follow-up tests to the MANOVA. There was a significant difference for on-task and

off-task behavior of students in classes of prospective and in-service teachers. In the

classes of prospective PE teachers, students spent significantly more time with off-

task behavior (12.3%) and less time with on-task behavior (45.4%) than students

who were from the classes of in-service PE teachers (1.7% for off-task and 61% for

on-task). Students spent significantly more time in the classes of prospective teachers

with interim behavior (1.6%) than students in the classes of in-service teachers (0.4).

Actually students in the classes of both groups spent almost entire class time with

four behaviors: on-task, off-task, waiting, and motor appropriate. Graphical

presentation of these mostly used behaviors was given in Figure 4.4.1.

While the students of prospective teachers spent significantly more time with

off-task and interim behaviors, the students of in-service teachers spent significantly

more time with on-task behaviors. However, there was no significant difference in

motor appropriate time of students. Subsequent ANOVA results of learner

involvement level for prospective and in-service teachers were given in Table 4.4.2.

44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Waiting Off-task On-task MotorAppropriate

Student Behaviors

Perc

enta

geInservice

Prospective

Figure 4.4.1. Graphical Representation of Mostly Used Behaviors in the Classes of Prospective and In-service PE Teachers

Table 4.4.2. ANOVA Results of Learner Involvement Level for Prospective and In-service Teachers

df F p

Not Motor Engaged

Interim 1 4.644 <.05*

Waiting 1 2.678 n.s

Off-task 1 53.186 <.001*

On-task 1 28.104 <.001*

Cognitive 1 2.450 n.s

Motor Engaged

M. Appropriate 1 .401 n.s

M. Inappropriate 1 3.721 n.s

M. Supporting 1 .499 n.s

45

4.5. Analysis of Variances (ANOVA) for ALT-PE

Analysis of variance test was conducted to assess whether means on ALT-PE

were significantly different between groups. The independent variable was group

(prospective and in-service teachers) and dependent variable was the mean ALT-PE

scores. The ANOVA result was not significant, F(1,52) = .073, p= .788 (Table

4.5.1.).

Table 4.5.1. ALT-PE Results for Prospective and In-service PE Teachers’ Classes

Prospective In-service F (1,52) P

Mean ALT-PE (%) 17.9 18.7 .073 .788

The results of ANOVA supported that students in the classes of prospective

and in-service PE teachers had similar scores on ALT-PE (17.9% for students in

prospective PE teachers’ classes and 18.7% for students in in -service PE teachers’

classes).

46

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to compare the lesson context, learner involvement

behaviors and ALT-PE scores of students in prospective and in-service PE teacher’s

classes by using ALT-PE observational instrument. The results of the study were

discussed in the framework that included the differences in general content, subject

matter motor content, and subject matter knowledge content at context level and

motor engaged and not motor engaged behaviors at learner involvement level. As

high-level motor appropriate behaviors and low-level of non-instructional behaviors

(off-task, waiting, interim) were directly related with teaching effectiveness, these

findings will contribute to understand (1) how the teacher constructed the class time

(2) what the student behavior was and (3) what percentages of class time spent with

motor appropriate activities.

5.1. Evaluation of Lesson Context for Prospective and In-service Teachers

Findings demonstrated that in-service and prospective teachers spent 39% and

34% of class time with general content (transition, management, warm-up, and

break) respectively. They had similar time for subject matter knowledge content

(technique, strategy, rules, social behavior, and background information). While

47

prospective PE teachers separated 45.1% of total class time to motor content, in-

service teachers separated 37.3% of total class time to motor content.

In hypothesis one, it was stated that there was no significant difference

between prospective and in-service teachers in terms of lesson context in PE classes.

MANOVA results of the study indicated that there was a significant difference

between prospective and in-service teachers in terms of lesson context. This finding

failed to support the hypothesis one.

Length of management time, warm-up time, and background information

time were significantly different for prospective and in-service PE teachers.

According to the univariate ANOVA results, significant difference was found in

management time between prospective (9.9%), and in-service (5.9%) teachers. This

finding was consistent with the literature that prospective teachers spent more time

on managerial activities. Griffey and Housner (1991) suggested that inexperienced

teachers tend to have students more under control than did their experienced

counterparts and spent more time for managerial skills.

Another univariate ANOVA result showed that in-service teachers spent

significantly more time for warm-up activities than did prospective teachers.

Sufficient warm-up activities prepare the muscles for later practices and prevent

injuries (Heyward, 1991). So every teacher should adjust adequate time to warm-up

activities. Çiçek (1998) stated that warm-up activities should take ten to fifteen

minutes generally and should be appropriate to lesson objectives. This duration

equals to 25%to 35% of total class time. But this study reveals that prospective

48

teachers spent 12.5%, and in-service teachers spent 20% of total class time with

warm-up activities.

Total percentage of class time spent for knowledge content (technique,

strategy, rules, social behavior, and background) was not significantly different

between prospective (21.1%) and in-service teachers (23.5%). But there was a

significant difference between in-service and prospective PE teachers on providing

more background information than prospective teachers in PE classes (0.8% and

2.9% respectively). This result was also parallel to previous findings that background

information such as, history, records, and heroes of subject matter or its’ importance

in later life, had no or very little period of the class time (Evans, 1999; Ward et al,

1999). But this kind of information should take optimal time because they can get

care of students and can increase the level of their interest to subject matter. As

stated in several literature teachers spent between 10% and 26% of class time with

knowledge content (Byra & Coulon, 1994; Godbout et al, 1983; Metzler, & Young,

1984; Evans et al, 1999; Ward et al, 1999). Knowledge content gives theoretical

explanations about technique of skill before practicing. Physical educator should

decrease the explanation period by giving short, clear, and understandable

information. Beckett (1989) stated that brief explanation and demonstration period

increase student achievement because of longer time for practice.

Another important section of PE class was providing subject matter motor

content for effective PE teaching. In this study, it was found that prospective and in-

service teachers spent 45.1% and 37.3% of class time with subject matter motor

content (practice, scrimmage, game, or fitness) respectively. There was no significant

difference between the groups but prospective teachers spent slightly more time with

49

motor activity than did prospective teachers. Graham (1993) stated that experienced

teachers tend to meet the knowledge-based demands of the students. Technical

explanations and demonstrations of the subject matter took shorter time for

prospective teachers (11.4%) than in-service teachers (13.3%). Moreover, in-service

teachers spent more time with warm-up activities and it could be the reason for

shorter time of motor engaged time.

The percentage of total time devoted to subject matter (motor and knowledge)

content was 66% for prospective teachers and 62% for in-service teachers that fall

below the range of findings reported in other ALT-PE studies (Evans et al, 1999;

Ward et al, 1999). Literature ranged subject matter percentage as high as 82%

(Silverman et al, 1984) and as low as 66% (Godbout et al, 1983). Findings showed

that both prospective and in-service teachers should decrease the time for general

content activities and they should assign this time for providing motor activities to

their students.

5.2. Evaluation of Learner Involvement for Prospective and In-service Teachers

Comparisons of how class time was spent by the learners at the learner

involvement level revealed differences within the subcategory “not motor engaged”

and similarities within the subcategory “motor engaged”.

Findings indicated that in-service and prospective teachers’ PE classes

students spent 78.8% and 80% of class time with “not motor engaged” activities

respectively. And remaining one fifth of total class time was assigned with “motor

engaged” content for prospective and in -service PE teachers.

50

Hypothesis two stated that there was no significant difference between the

learner involvement level of the students of prospective and in-service PE teachers.

Results of the study indicated that there was a significant difference between

prospective and in-service teachers in terms of learner involvement. This finding

failed to support the hypothesis two. ANOVA results demonstrated that off-task, on-

task, and interim behaviors of students were significantly different in prospective and

in-service PE teachers’ classes.

Percentages of class time spent for on-task behavior of students was

significantly different between the groups (45.5% for prospective and 61% for in-

service PE teachers). On-task behavior showed that students were appropriately

engaged in carrying out an assigned non-subject matter task (e.g., management task,

transition task, warm-up task). Siedentop (1991) compared the experienced and new

PE teacher teaching behaviors and stated that new teacher as “new adult”, in the

sense that he/she was entering a teaching environment without sufficient experiences.

So it was normal that new teacher found teaching complex and he/she had difficulty

in controlling the class.

In addition, students were spending their 12.5% of class time with off-task

behaviors in the classes of prospective teachers but this rate was two percent over

than in the classes of in-service teachers. Actually, off-task was related with on-task

behavior as one increases, the other decreases and vice versa. Prospective teachers

were found more excited than in-service teachers during the lesson (Metzler, 1990;

Siedentop, 1991).

51

Previous studies have indicated that the more opportunities students have

active participation at an appropriate level, the more likely learning is to occur (Rink,

1996; Parker, 1989). Subsequently, researchers used ALT-PE as an indicator of the

amount of time students were spending actively engaged in an appropriate activity at

a level conducive to maximum learning. Unfortunately, students were spending

anywhere from 15% to 20.5% of their class time waiting. The main reason for

waiting time might be organizing practices with inadequate equipment. For example,

in handball lesson, two students had one ball to use but in high jump lesson students

had one high jump mat to use. So every student had to wait until the other student

complete to drill. Other reason could be the grouping students in one queue during

activities. Physical education teacher must consider on variety group organization in

a few groups and settings. Teacher should decrease the waiting time for students

during exercise. Hould and Brunelle (1981) suggested that grouping students and

using of practice area could decrease the waiting time. Templin (1983) suggested that

more than half of the class time passes with waiting. PE teacher should modify

practices and games to allow more direct student participation.

Although there was a significant difference in interim behavior between

groups, it was found very small percentages just like cognitive behavior of students.

Because of the great amount of time the students were spent waiting and off-task

behavior, the amount of time they had to participate was limited (Evans et al, 1999;

Ward et al, 1999).

The amount of time devoted to learner motor engaged behavior was

approximately the same across conditions. Within all three subcategories (motor

52

appropriate, motor inappropriate, motor supporting) the results were quite similar

and there was no significant difference between two groups.

5.3. Evaluation of Total ALT-PE for Prospective and In-service Teachers

As stated in many literatures about teacher effectiveness, effective instruction,

and quality physical education programs were all related with the percentage of

academic learning time (ALT) which is an amount of time a students spends in motor

skill tasks that are considered relevant and appropriate with the assigned activity.

Hypothesis three stated that there was no significant difference in ALT-PE

scores between the classes of prospective and in-service teachers. Results of the

study indicated that there was no significant difference between prospective and in-

service teachers in terms of total ALT-PE scores. This finding about the hypothesis

three was accepted.

The results of the present study showed that ALT-PE percentages were 17.9%

and 18.7% for prospective and in-service teachers’ classes respectively. So there was

no significant difference between prospective and in-service teachers’ classes by

considering the total ALT-PE results.

At the end of his review, Metzler (1989) reached the conclusion that ALT is

low regardless of who the teacher is. Graham, Hopple, Manros, and Sitzman (1993)

stated that experienced teachers tend to meet the demands of the students. These

results were medium according to the reviews of Parker (1989) for two groups.

Parker (1989) found the ALT-PE percentages between 14% and 22% and another

study Silverman et al (1984) found similar ALT-PE results between 15% and 25% of

total class time. However, Hastie (1994) found three different ALT-PE percentages

53

among three physical educators. He concluded that teacher A engaged their students

42.9% of class time with ALT-PE and he has classified as effective teacher. This

teacher made short explanation, and he also did not increase the management time.

And two other teachers classified as less effective teachers because of low ALT-PE

percentages (23.3% and 27.7%). In a similar study, Ward et al (1999) found the

percentages of ALT-PE as 27%, 32%, and 42% for three different teachers.

Moreover, Evans et al (1999) found the ALT-PE percentages from 45% to 66%,

which were almost three times greater than previous results.

It is not expected from students that they must participate in motor activity

during the whole PE class period. But teacher should organize the 45-50% of class

time for appropriate motor activity for each individual student. In this study, 17.9%

and 18.7% of Total ALT-PE scores were found. These findings were close to lower

limits in the literature. So both groups of PE teachers were ineffective teachers

because of the findings.

5.4. Conclusion and Recommendations

The ultimate goal of PE class is to allow all children to participate and enjoy

the benefits of sports for a lifetime. Building quality physical education programs for

the purpose of developing physical skills, allow students to participate comfortably

in sport activities. It is then expected that students would join physical activities

through much of their later life. But this study showed that prospective and in-service

teachers have not given sufficient time for skill learning.

Low ALT-PE percentages may be attributed to class size, type of activity and

amount of equipment, teacher behavior, class structure and organization. From

54

present study it seems that teacher should try to decrease management, waiting, and

transition percentages and organize lessons with the primary goal of improving

successful engagement time of students. This statement was supported by the results

from this study as well as previous studies (Byra, & Coulon, 1994; Lacy et al, 1993;

Lacy et al, 1998).

The results of this study can only be generalized to the 26 prospective and 28

in-service teachers and their 162 students from 54 observed classes. Future studies

should be completed on the appropriate motor engagement percentages of students to

see the effectiveness of variety PE classes.

Additional studies in other settings would be helpful to expand the database

in this area. Future studies focusing on the effects of such things as different

teachers, class size, class structure, type of activity on student ALT could also aid

teachers and researchers to better understand what constitutes an effective teaching-

learning environment in PE classes.

Physical education teacher educators should use findings of this study to

evaluate their programs. Especially, findings may provide valuable data for field

practice studies of prospective PE teachers.

55

REFERENCES Anderson, W. (1983). Observations from outside the system. Journal of Teaching in

Physical Education, Monograph, Dodds & Rife (eds.), 53-59. Aufderheide, S. K. M. (1980). Individualized teaching strategies in mainstreamed

physical education classes and their relationship to academic learning time. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(4), 1472A.

Beauchamp, L., Darst, P., & Thompson, L. P. (1990). Academic learning time as an

indication of quality high school physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 61(1), 92-95.

Beckett, K. D. (1989). The effects of motor appropriate engagement ALT-PE(M) on

achievement in a badminton skill during an experimental teaching unit.The Physical Educator, 46(1), 36-40.

Behets, D. (1996). Comparing teacher behavior during active learning time among

physical education specialist and non-specialist teachers. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 31(2), 23-29.

Birdwell, D. M. (1980). The effects of modification of teacher behavior on the

academic earning time of selected students in physical education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(4), 1472A.

Byra, M., & Coulon, S. C. (1994). The effect of planning on the instructional

behaviors of preservice teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 3, 123-139.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for school and community

programs to promote lifelong physical activity among young people, (1997) http://www.cdc.gov

56

Cruickshank, D. R., Jenkins, D. B., & Metcalf, K. K (2003). The Act of Teaching (3rd ed). NY: McGraw-Hill Pub.

Çiçek, S. (1998). Evaluation of Physical education teacher education program at

Middle East Technical University. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, 1998.

�U���"��� ���> >¡£¢X��¤ ¥Y¦+�2�=§ >¨T©�ª�ªc«­¬e  ®%¯[°.±e²�³�´pµ�³ ¶�³�·�³"¸�¹l¯T¹}º»¹�¼�¸I´�³�¯�º'³�· ½�³�´�¹9¾�³'¿�°�´(ÀeÁ2½�°)À.¯+ÁJ¿�½�°�´�ÁÂ�Ã�Ä)Å�Æ2Ç�È»Æ�Ç�Ã�Ç-É�Æ�É�Ê�Ë ÉJÌsÅ ÉJÃ�Í�Î"Æ2Ï�Ê�È'Î�Ð Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(4), 3-17.

ÑUÒ�Ó"Ô�Õ Ö0×ÙØÚÖUÛCÒ}Ü�Ý�Þ ß"à�Ö0×dØáÖXâãÛ0ä�Ó�Ý�Õ�Ö0×dØAå�æYç�ç�è"éeØ�êÙë�ì íeÒ�ß�Ý"îDÔ�ï%ð�ß"ÝYñOÒ2ä)òqñ[Ô Ý ß�ë�Ô�Üsó�Ü�ä�ô�Ò2î�ÔõÒ}ò

Turkey: demographic characteristics, habits, working atmosphere. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 9, 32-42.

De Marco, G. M., Mancini, V. H., Wuest, D. A., & Schempp, P. G. (1996).

Becoming reacquainted with once familiar and stil valuable tool: Systematic observation methodology revisited. International Journal of Physical Education, 32(1), 17-26.

öC÷�ø'ù�ú+û�ü�ý�þ'ÿ�� ��������� � �p÷���÷�ý ÷���ù��+ùJø'ù���÷������)ú���ü����Iú�÷��[øm÷

-��)ú�÷�ý�ø'÷ ÷�� ùJý� �ù!�� 2÷�ú�ù���÷

felsefe. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1), 4-16. Dixon, S. L. (1997). A study of ALT-PE and opportunity to respond to determine

teaching effectiveness of college basketball coaches. (Doctoral dissertation, University Microfilms No: 9727479)

Dodds, P., & Rife, F. (1983). Time to learn in physical education: History, completed

research, and potential future for academic learning time in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Monograph 1.

Evans, S. A., Nguyen, P. T., Barrett, T. M., Johnson, M. K., Doutis, P., Brobst, B., &

Shinoda, Y. (1999). Curriculum effects in seventh-grade pickleball. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 444-454.

Godbout, P., Brunelle, J., & Tousignant, M. (1983). Academic learning time in

elementary and secondary physical education classes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 54(1), 11-19.

57

Graham, G. (1987). Motor skill acquisition – An essential goal of physical education programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance,(58), 44-48.

Graham, G., Hopple, C., Manros, M., & Sitzman, T. (1993). Novice and experienced

children’s physical education teachers: Insights i nto their situational decision making. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,12, 197-214.

Griffey, D. (1983). Academic learning time in context: On the nonlinear and

interactional characteristics of engaged time. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Monograph, Dodds & Rife (eds.), 34-37.

Griffey, D. C. & Housner, L. D. (1991). Differences between experienced and

inexperienced teachers’ planning decisions, interactions, student engagement, and instructional climate. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(2), 196-204.

Harrison, J. M., & Blakemore, C. L. (1992). Instructional Strategies for Secondary

School Physical Education (3rd Ed.). Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Pub. Hastie, P. A. (1998). Effect of instructional context on teacher and student behaviors

in physical education. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 33(2), 24-31. Hastie, P. A. (1994). Selected teacher behaviors and student ALT-PE in secondary

school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 13(3), 242-259.

Hawkins, A., Wiegand, R., & Behneman, C. (1983). The conceptual nature of ALT-

PE and its use in an undergraduate teacher preparation program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Monograph, Dodds & Rife (eds.), 11-16.

Heyward, V. H. (1991). Advanced Fitness Assessment and Exercise Prescription (2nd

Ed). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Johns, D. P., Ha, A. S. C., & Macfarlane, D. J. (2001). Raising activity levels: A

multi dimensional analysis of curriculum change. Sport, Education, and Society 6(2), 199-210

58

LaMaster, K. J., & Lacy, A. C. (1993). Relationship of teacher behaviors to ALT PE in junior high school physical education. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 28(1), 21-25.

Lacy, A., LaMaster, K., & Tommaney, W. (1996). Teacher behaviors and student

ALT in elementary physical education. The Physical Educator, 53(1), 44-50. Lacy, A., Willison, C., & Hicks, D. (1998). Student and teacher behaviors in an

exemplary elementary physical education setting. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 33(2), 1-5.

Lumpkin, A. (1990). Physical Education and Sport: A contemporary introduction

(2nd Ed) Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing. Martinek, T., & Karper, W. (1983). The influence of teacher expectations on ALT in

physical education instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Monograph, Dodds & Rife (eds.), 48-52.

Metzler, M. (1990). Instructional Supervision for Physical Education. Champaign,

IL: Human Kinetics. Metzler, M. (1983b). Academic learning time-physical education for in-service

teachers: Questions and insights. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Monograph, Dodds & Rife (eds.), 17-21

Metzler, M. W., & Young, J. C. (1984). The relationship between teachers’ preactive

planning and student process measures. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55(4), 356-364.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Moving into the future:

National standards for physical education. NASPE, (1995). Parker, M. (1989). Academic Learning Time in Physical Education (ALT-PE), 1982

Revision. In P. W. Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek, & V. H. Mancini (Eds). Analyzing Physical Education and Sport Instruction (2nd Ed.) pp. (195-206). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

59

Parker, M. & O'Sullivan, M. (1983). Modifying academic learning time-physical education for game play contexts and other reflections. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Monograph, Dodds & Rife (eds.), 8-10.

Randall, L. E. (1992). Systematic Supervision For Physical Education. Champaign,

Illinois. Human Kinetics Publishers. Rate, R. W. (1980). A descriptive analysis of academic learning time and coaching

behaviors in interscholastic athletic practices. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(7), 2998A.

Rink, J. E. (1996). Effective Instruction in physical education. (In Silverman, &

Ennis. 1996). Student Learning in Physical Education: Applying research to enhance instruction. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 171-198.

Siedentop, D. (1991). Developing Teaching Skills in Physical Education (3rd ed).

Mayfield Publishing Company, CA 94041. Siedentop, D. (1983). Academic Learning Time: Reflections and prospects. Journal

of Teaching in Physical Education, Dodds & Rife (eds.), Monograph, 3-7. Siedentop, D., Mand, C., & Taggart, A. (1986). Physical education: Teaching and

curriculum strategies for grades 5-12. Mayfield Publishing Company. Silverman, S., Devillier, R., & Ramirez, T. (1991). The validity of academic learning

time-physical education (ALT-PE) as a process measure of achievement. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(3), 319-325.

Silverman, S., Dodds, P., Placek, J., Shute, S. & Rife, F. (1984). Academic learning

time in elementary school physical education (ALT-PE) for student subgroups and instructional activity units. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55(4), 365-370.

Templin, T. (1983). Triangulating ALT-PE: A research consideration. Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education, Monograph, Dodds & Rife (eds.), 38-41.

60

Tousignant, M., Brunelle, J., Pieron, M., & Dhillon, G. (1983). What’s happening to the ALT-PE research outside the USA? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Monograph, Dodds & Rife (eds.), 27-33.

Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional

contexts of classrooms: Using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 69-85.

Van Der Mars, H. (1989). Observer reliability: Issues and procedures. In P. W.

Darst, D. B. Zakrajsek, & V. H. Mancini (Eds). Analyzing Physical Education and Sport Instruction (2nd Ed.) pp (53-80). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Van Der Mars, H., Vogler, B., Darst, P., & Cusimano, B. (1994). Active supervision

patterns of physical education teachers and their relationship with student behaviors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 99-112.

Ward, P., Barrett, T. M., Evans, S. A., Doutis, P., Nguyen, P. T., & Johnson, M. K.

(1999). Curriculum effects in eighth-grade lacrosse. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 428-443.

61

APPENDICES

62

APPENDIX A

63

ACADEMIC LEARNING TIME - PHYSICAL EDUCATION (ALT-PE)

Purpose: to measure the portion of time in a physical education (PE) lesson that a

student is involved in motor activity at an appropriate success rate. The total

instrument is capable of describing not only the type of motor activity in which

selected students are involved, but also the context in which the total class is

involved. The information on motor activity provides the most useful data physical

education.

CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS

A. CONTEXT LEVEL

The context level describes the context of the setting within which specific

individual student behavior is occurring. This level is comprised of two major facets:

general content and subject matter content.

1. General Content

Class time during which students are not intended to be involved in physical

education activities.

a. Transition (T): Time devoted to managerial and organizational

activities related to instruction

b. Management (M): Time devoted to class business that is unrelated to

instructional activity

c. Break (B): Time devoted to rest and/or discussion of issues unrelated

to subject matter.

64

d. Warm-up (WU): Time devoted to routine execution of physical

activities whose purpose is to prepare the individual for engaging in

further activity, but not designed to alter the state of the individual on

a long term basis.

2. Subject Matter Knowledge Content

Class time when the primary focus is intended to be on knowledge related to PE

content.

a. Technique (TN): Time devoted to transmitting information

concerning the physical form (topography) of a motor skill.

b. Strategy (ST): Time devoted to transmitting information concerning

plans of action for performing either individually or as a group.

c. Rules (R): Time devoted to transmitting information about regulations

that govern activity related to the subject matter.

d. Social Behavior (SB): Time devoted to transmitting information about

appropriate and inappropriate ways of behaving within the context of

the activity.

e. Background (BK): Time devoted to transmitting information about a

subject matter activity such as its history, traditions, rituals, heroes,

heroines, records, importance in later life, or relationship to fitness.

65

3. Subject Matter Motor Content

Class time when the primary focus is intended to be on motor involvement in PE

activities.

a. Skill Practice (P): Time devoted to practice of skills or chains of skills

outside the applied context with primary goal of skill development.

b. Scrimmage/Routine (S): Time devoted to refinement and extension of

skills in an applied setting (i.e., in a setting that is like or stimulates

the setting in which the skill is actually used) and during which there

is frequent instruction and feedback for the participants.

c. Game (G): Time devoted to application of skills in a game or

competitive setting when the participants perform without

intervention from the instructor/coach.

d. Fitness (F): Time devoted to activities whose purpose is to alter the

physical state of the individual in terms of strength, cardiovascular

endurance, or flexibility.

B. LEARNER INVOLVEMENT LEVEL

The learner involvement level describes how individual learners are involved in

the PE setting described in the context level. The learner involvement level has two

facets: not motor engaged and motor engaged.

66

1. Not Motor Engaged

Any student involvement other than motor involvement with subject matter-oriented

motor activities.

a. Interim (I): The student is engaged in non-instructional aspect of an ongoing

activity.

b. Waiting (W): The student has completed a task and is waiting for the next

instructions or opportunity to respond.

c. Off-Task (OF): The student is either not engaged in an activity he or she

should be engaged in or is engaged in an activity other than the one he or she

should be engaged in.

d. On-Task (ON): The student is appropriately engaged in carrying out an

assigned non-subject matter task (e.g., management task, transition task,

warm-up task).

e. Cognitive (C): The student is appropriately involved in a cognitive task.

2. Motor Engaged

Motor involvement with subject matter-oriented motor activities related to the

goals of the setting. Thus the categories under the heading not motor engaged might

include motor activity, but not subject matter-oriented motor activity.

a. Motor Appropriate (MA): The student is engaged in a subject matter motor

activity in such a way as to produce a high degree of success.

67

b. Motor Inappropriate (MI): The student is engaged in a subject matter-oriented

activity, but the activity-task is either too difficult for the individual’s

capabilities or so easy that practicing it could not contribute to lesson goals.

c. Supporting (S): The student is engaged in subject matter motor activity whose

purpose is to assist others in learning or performing the activity.

68

APPENDIX B

ALT-PE RECORD SHEET

69

ALT-PE RECORD SHEET

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 S___ C LI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 S___ C LI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 S___ C LI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 S___ C LI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 S___ C LI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 S___ C LI

CONTEXT LEVEL (C) LEARNER INVOLVEMENT LEVEL (LI) General Content Subject Matter Knowledge Content Subject Matter Motor Content Not Motor Engaged Motor Engaged -Transition (T) -Technique (TN) -Skill practice (P) -Interim (I) -Motor Appropriate (MA) -Management (M) -Strategy (ST) -Scrimmage/Routine (S) -Waiting (W) -Motor Inappropriate (MI) -Break (B) -Rule (R) -Game (G) -Off-task (OF) -Supporting (MS) -Warm-up (WU) -Social Behavior (SB) -Fitness (F) -On-task (ON) -Background (BK) -Cognitive (C)

69